Re: Beta4 Tag'd and Bundled ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Cc: Adam Witney <awitney(at)sghms(dot)ac(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Beta4 Tag'd and Bundled ...
Date: 2003-10-04 17:29:23
Message-ID: 14448.1065288563@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
>> Hm. The parallel regression tests require at least 20. I deliberately
>> allowed initdb to select values as small as 10 on the theory that
>> installing and not being able to run the parallel regression tests is
>> better than not installing at all.

> Another alternative is to have the regression suite discover the max
> connections, and defer tests when there are (max_connections - 1)
> connections already.

Maybe. After thinking a bit more, I seem to recall one of the reasons
for having wide parallel sets in the regression tests is that we
*wanted* to consider inability to support a dozen or two connections as
a serious problem. If we still believe that old logic, then indeed the
right thing to do is for initdb to insist on setting max_connections no
smaller than 20. (Pre-7.4, the default setting was generally 32, so
this is still more flexible than before from a portability standpoint.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-04 17:48:47 Re: count(*) slow on large tables
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2003-10-04 17:20:42 Re: Beta4 Tag'd and Bundled ...